European Super League | ECJ rule that UEFA and FIFA acted unlawfully in blocking Super League (p 29)

Why do you think UEFA shouldn't be allowed to run its own tournaments, negotiate broadcasting deals for them and sponsor them with third parties? That isn't where the law is going at all afaik .......
At present UEFA take a huge slice of the broadcasting and sponsor payments while the broadcasters take all the pay-per-view and advertising revenues. Streaming techhnology means that clubs can produce their own broadcasts and take the lot. The clubs own the content so should get the lions' share of the revenue. This is what the whole breakaway row is about. Last year's CL final apparently had 450 million viewers across the globe. Why should the clubs give away their content for peanuts? It is nothing to do with the law. It is globalisation (whether we like it or not). If UEFA wants to survive it will have to give up its monopoly.
 
At present UEFA take a huge slice of the broadcasting and sponsor payments while the broadcasters take all the pay-per-view and advertising revenues. Streaming techhnology means that clubs can produce their own broadcasts and take the lot. The clubs own the content so should get the lions' share of the revenue. This is what the whole breakaway row is about. Last year's CL final apparently had 450 million viewers across the globe. Why should the clubs give away their content for peanuts? It is nothing to do with the law. It is globalisation (whether we like it or not). If UEFA wants to survive it will have to give up its monopoly.
Were those people watching City v Milan or the Champions League final? UEFA could argue the content is theirs and clubs attract fans and sponsorship from playing in their tournament.

Could City not organise a game against Milan next week and charge £15 to watch it? Would that be against UEFA rules? Would you spend £15 to watch it? I wouldn't
 
Were those people watching City v Milan or the Champions League final? UEFA could argue the content is theirs and clubs attract fans and sponsorship from playing in their tournament.

Could City not organise a game against Milan next week and charge £15 to watch it? Would that be against UEFA rules? Would you spend £15 to watch it? I wouldn't
You could also frame the argument in that are you watching it because it has UEFA slapped on it or are you watching it because its the best teams in europe competing against each other. If the best teams in europe created the champions league away from UEFA with all the current rules then it would still get the same viewership.
 
At present UEFA take a huge slice of the broadcasting and sponsor payments while the broadcasters take all the pay-per-view and advertising revenues. Streaming techhnology means that clubs can produce their own broadcasts and take the lot. The clubs own the content so should get the lions' share of the revenue. This is what the whole breakaway row is about. Last year's CL final apparently had 450 million viewers across the globe. Why should the clubs give away their content for peanuts? It is nothing to do with the law. It is globalisation (whether we like it or not). If UEFA wants to survive it will have to give up its monopoly.

UEFA doesn't have a monopoly. That was the whole point of the recent case. What it does have, as the governing body of the sport is a responsibility under the European Sports Model to support the football pyramid. And that is what it does. You think UEFA syphons off 50% of its broadcast and sponsorship revenue and does what with it exactly? Do you actually know how much UEFA spends on its own organisational structure, compared to how much it reinvests in the game by way of prize money, participation bonuses and solidarity payments to the domestic leagues?

I see nothing at all wrong with the current structure, taking into account the long-term future of the game across the continent.

On the contrary, your vision of the future where how many (four or five?) "global") clubs take all the broadcast revenues and sponsorship for themselves, in what will amount basically to glorified friendlies, isn't globalisation in my book, it's the death knell for organised football in Europe. You will no doubt say these clubs would be expected to plough some of their earnings back into grass roots football, so you are effectively saying some money should be siphoned off to protect the game? That is exactly what UEFA does.

I am not sure your boxing analogy works in football either. The sports are completely different.

I have my problems with FIFA and UEFA as well, but consolidating all the power in a few clubs isn't the way forward imho. It won't be supported by anyone, including the legal system, and, in my opinion, will never happen to football in Europe.

Then again, I could be completely wrong. It has been known :)
 
You could also frame the argument in that are you watching it because it has UEFA slapped on it or are you watching it because its the best teams in europe competing against each other. If the best teams in europe created the champions league away from UEFA with all the current rules then it would still get the same viewership.
I'm not 100% sure I agree. How many of those preseason tournaments we take part in every year have the prestige of a Champions League final?

The prestige comes from all the parties involved agreeing it's prestigious. The history of the tournament etc plays into that. A different tournament even with the same teams in the same format would take ages to gain the same prestige. Even with the CWC we see how much of the prestige is perception - when Liverpool won it it was prestigious. When City win it then it's Soccer Aid
 
I'm not 100% sure I agree. How many of those preseason tournaments we take part in every year have the prestige of a Champions League final?

The prestige comes from all the parties involved agreeing it's prestigious. The history of the tournament etc plays into that. A different tournament even with the same teams in the same format would take ages to gain the same prestige. Even with the CWC we see how much of the prestige is perception - when Liverpool won it it was prestigious. When City win it then it's Soccer Aid
Thats because those tournaments are pre season frendlies. If the new tournament was in place of the champions league then the average TV viewer would tune in and thats what sponsors care about. Just look at when the european cup became the champions league. Rebranding of tournaments doesn't change the buy in from fans it just slaps a new label on it and continues as before.
 
Thats because those tournaments are pre season frendlies. If the new tournament was in place of the champions league then the average TV viewer would tune in and thats what sponsors care about. Just look at when the european cup became the champions league. Rebranding of tournaments doesn't change the buy in from fans it just slaps a new label on it and continues as before.
It's not a rebrand you're suggesting though.
 
Thats because those tournaments are pre season frendlies. If the new tournament was in place of the champions league then the average TV viewer would tune in and thats what sponsors care about. Just look at when the european cup became the champions league. Rebranding of tournaments doesn't change the buy in from fans it just slaps a new label on it and continues as before.
A breakaway competition will never have the same prestige as one held under the well regulated and established FIFA Umbrella.
The money UEFA obtain through the Champions League and other competitions is shared through the national associations throughout Europe (and Isreal) for the promotion of ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL.
This concept is to try and deny money going to grass roots football in Lithuania or Macedonia but instead going to wealthy club owners to increase dividends or clear debts from their overspending.
 
The proposed ESL is too closely associated with the Real Madrid "Mafia" including crooks like Tebas. He is a totally divisive and toxic figure in Spain and it's hard to see any major clubs (or sponsors) trusting the new proposals whatever their merit.
Tebas is certainly not a supporter of the ESL, so the whole point makes no sense.


Try not to post while 'confused'.
 
At present UEFA take a huge slice of the broadcasting and sponsor payments while the broadcasters take all the pay-per-view and advertising revenues. Streaming techhnology means that clubs can produce their own broadcasts and take the lot. The clubs own the content so should get the lions' share of the revenue. This is what the whole breakaway row is about. Last year's CL final apparently had 450 million viewers across the globe. Why should the clubs give away their content for peanuts? It is nothing to do with the law. It is globalisation (whether we like it or not). If UEFA wants to survive it will have to give up its monopoly.
How much money does Uefa make from selling TV revenue for the CL? And how much do the clubs get from it?
And is this just UEFA or would all this be true with regards to the PL too?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.